Atlantic Article: Moderates and the idea that only they can win

[Bettie]

NOTE: If this was already posted, I apologize, I looked and didn't find it.

Also, this is not the actual title of the article, but a quick description of what it is about.

LINK: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/moderates-cant-win-white-house/606985/?fbclid=IwAR0J63ibTxNky22XyuQsgNrFXzp6dE-rGCh4jSQn0AK7iaKqyQMiscJv2wk

Excerpts...and I hate trying to choose those four paragraphs. Took them from kind of the middle.

For decades, moderate Democrats have repeatedly invoked McGovern’s rout whenever any sort of progressive appears on the political horizon. In recent Democratic primaries, moderates have warned of Howard Dean in 2004, of Barack Obama in 2008, and now, of Warren and Sanders, as the new McGoverns who can’t win.

How are these moderate Democrats running on their electability in 2020 when a moderate Democrat lost to Trump in 2016? How is the electable moderate reborn when it has died so many times in recent presidential elections? Simple: When moderate Democrats lose, they blame everything except the party’s decision to nominate a moderate for president of the United States.

Take the aftermath of the 2016 election. In her memoir, What Happened?, Clinton blamed FBI Director James Comey, Sanders, Russian operatives, sexism, the Green Party nominee Jill Stein, white resentment, the media airtime of Trump and the email scandal, and, bravely, herself. It is undeniable that all of these factors contributed to her defeat. But something even more basic could have been the deciding factor: moderate Democrats nominating Clinton over Sanders. Instead of blaming everyone else, including Clinton, perhaps those Democrats responsible for nominating her should be blaming themselves.

If the roles were reversed, most moderates would almost certainly be imploring progressives to blame themselves. If Sanders had been nominated in 2016, and similar factors contributed to his defeat, then I suspect moderates would not be highlighting all these factors, just as they do not highlight the factors that contributed to McGovern’s loss in 1972. That year, he faced not only a popular incumbent and good economy, but a “dirty tricks” unit that broke into the Watergate complex to wiretap the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. Perhaps most terrible, many moderate Democrats either joined old Lyndon B. Johnson allies in “Democrats for Nixon” efforts or simply refused to offer their public support. Polls showed McGovern far behind Nixon except when paired with Senator Ted Kennedy. But Kennedy declined to run with McGovern, as did five other prominent moderates. McGovern had to settle for Senator Thomas Eagleton, who hurt his already poorly run campaign. If moderates can blame progressives for Clinton’s loss in 2016, then progressives can blame moderates for McGovern’s loss in 1972—and progressives can blame moderates for a Sanders loss in 2020 if moderates withhold support again.

[ibegurpard]

1. Ouch

[Bettie]

3. That's why I was hesitant to post it

I suspect there will soon be a bunch of people really angry about the idea that this article even exists.

[Squinch]

2. A moderate won 2 out of the last 3 Presidential elections. Progressive candidates didn't

win even among Democrats in the primaries.

Moderates kicked ass in the 2018 midterms, turning dozens of red states blue. Progressive and Our Revolution and Bernie-backed candidates got demolished in the 2018 election.

So... no.

[democrattotheend]

4. Obama wasn't really perceived as a moderate

He's not as far left as Bernie by far but at the time at least he was either smack in the middle of where the party was ideologically or maybe a bit to the left. The party has moved further left since 2008, mostly because of Bernie.

[Squinch]

5. Yes he was.

[democrattotheend]

12. Not in 2008 he wasn't

He was the "anti-establishment" candidate with the support of grassroots activists eager to take down the "Clinton machine". Unlike Bernie, he had some support early on from elements of the establishment, but he also got a lot of grassroots support and in many ways paved the way for a candidate like Bernie. Even though he did do high dollar closed-door fundraisers, he also helped to demonstrate the power of grassroots small-dollar fundraising.

[Squinch]

20. Suuuure he was. That's why Bernie wanted to primary him, right?

[democrattotheend]

25. That was in 2012

In 2008 he had plenty of primary challengers at the beginning. And IDK if Bernie actually wanted to primary Obama himself or just thought someone should. It's a little unclear from what he said and what was reported at the time. But he made the point that a primary challenge from the left would help hold Obama's feet to the fire on things like social security.

[Squinch]

29. Uh huh. Same guy. Same policies. And Bernie thought he was so lacking in progressive

bona fides that he needed to be primaried.

Because that made sense.

[Ace Rothstein]

40. Have you read either of Obama's first two books?

He's definitely much further to the left than he governed as POTUS.

[Squinch]

41. But apparently not far left enough that he didn't have to fight being primaried by Bernie.

[Ace Rothstein]

42. As I said, he didn't govern that way.

The Obama who wrote Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope was a different Obama from the one in the White House.

[lapucelle]

32. HRC ran to the left of BHO in 2008. What I fear are confused pundits & the influence they wield.

Link to tweet

[Bettie]

8. Hope and Change

aren't what moderates have as their campaign slogans.

[Squinch]

14. So he was, as the other poster said, in the middle of the Democratic ideological field, but he

wasn't a moderate.

Makes sense. But not much.

[Laelth]

28. These days, Bernie and Elizabeth are saying, "YES. WE CAN."

Many of our "moderates" are saying, "NO. WE CAN'T."

No wonder we nominated Obama in 2008. "No. We can't" is not an effective campaign slogan.

-Laelth

[guillaumeb]

6. AOC, Rashida Tlaib, and Lauren Underwood have something in common.

All are progressives who won in 2018.

[Bettie]

7. Shhh....they dont' exist

only moderates won! DUH!

[guillaumeb]

11. And I have mentioned this in numerous posts here.

But nevertheless, the meme persists.

[Squinch]

15. Yes. The meme of 3 progressive seats vs. 23 moderate seats.

[oldsoftie]

19. Funny how THAT little point was forgotten.

Gee, 3 "progressives" won in 3 progressive districts

[Squinch]

21. But it's just a meme, doncha know?

[Squinch]

9. That's 3. Moderates flipped a couple of dozen Repubican seats.

Progressive Democrats running in competitive House districts had a bad night on Tuesday

When all was said and done, 2018 was not the year of the winning progressive Democrat.

Moderate Democratic candidates were the big winners of swing congressional districts in the 2018 midterm elections, flipping most of the 28 key House districts from Republicans’ control and winning key gubernatorial races, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Illinois. Democrats’ net gain in the House was 26 seats.

Progressive candidates flipped few of those seats. For the most part, the biggest upsets for the left occurred during the summer primaries; most of those districts were already blue and primed to elect Democrats. Many of the left-wing candidates who tested the theory of turning out their base, even in more conservative districts, lost on election night.
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18071700/progressive-democrats-house-midterm-elections-2018

Most progressives didn't even make it to the big show and were beaten in the primaries.

[guillaumeb]

13. "Progressive candidates didn't win even among Democrats in the primaries."

Those were your words.

[Squinch]

17. Yes. What's your point? That those on the far left, if only freed of the fetters of the Democratic

Party, would finally soar if allowed to compete for Republican votes?

[guillaumeb]

24. The term "far left" is imprecise.

But the point is that we can speculate as to which candidate can best beat Trump, but what we need to beat Trump is an energized electorate.

Who can best energize that electorate? My guess is that Elizabeth Warren can do it.

[Squinch]

27. Heaven forfend! I have been imprecise! I have referred to progressives, the acknowledged far left

wing of our party, as the far left!

And that's very nice for you that you guess Elizabeth Warren can win. Thank you for telling us.

[guillaumeb]

36. And how do you describe yourself?

A moderate? If so, is there a litmus test?

[Squinch]

37. You tell me. Is there? And what is your point?

[guillaumeb]

38. That labels such as moderate, and far left, are meaningless.

What the GOP calls moderate I call far right.

[Squinch]

39. So?

[Sympthsical]

26. Obama campaigned as a liberal and governed as a moderate.

I was a very early supporter of Obama in 2008 based on his liberalism compared to Clinton.

And Clinton didn’t win. It does no good to claim so. We have the system we have, everyone knew the rules ahead of time, and Clinton lost according to those rules.

I’d say the last moderate Democrat to campaign as a moderate who won was Bill Clinton in ‘96. I was too young to vote, but I remember him bragging about stopping gay marriage, and that chapped my ass right up.

[Laelth]

31. Welcome to DU.

Clinton was first elected in '92. And, yes. He ran as a moderate. His first two years were impressive, and then the Democratic Party lost the House of Representatives in 1994 for the first time in over 50 years. After that, Clinton governed as a Republican. In fact, I consider him the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

-Laelth

[Bettie]

33. IF we're honest about it

Bill Clinton won because Ross Perot pulled a significant segment of the Republican vote from Bush.

[ms liberty]

10. K&R. n/t

[oldsoftie]

16. THIS BS again? Look who won in '18 & who lost, then get back to me about WINNING.

Or run Sanders & if he loses, what will be the excuse? Russians?

[Bettie]

18. Well, you'll blame him being liberal

if Biden runs and loses, you'll blame Bernie.

[oldsoftie]

23. Well, i would if his voters stay away from the polls like they did in '16

[Blue_Tires]

22. His memory is selective as all fuck...

I wouldn't even know where to start

[lapfog_1]

30. Barack Obama was a moderate

why else would there be these persistent stories about Bernie entertaining the thought of running in 2011?

Anyway, I don't ever use the analogy of McGovern... I think the better comparison is Jeremy Corbyn and Trump look alike Boris Johnson.

That comparison is much more recent, covers many of the same issues, and has the same personalities running as the potential Bernie v. Donald contest.

I can only hope the outcome here is much different.

Oh, and I remember that weeks before the contest, with Brexit being extremely unpopular, the polls showed that Labor would win big.

Oops.

[ibegurpard]

43. yes he was

But his first campaign he certainly ran as a candidate of change

[Awsi Dooger]

34. A liberal can win in a very favorable situation

We could have nominated someone more liberal in 1992 or 2008 and won, since Republicans had held the White House for 12 years then 8 years and their favorability rating was low.

The problem is when the situational landscape is totally ignored. That article does it and virtually every article and analyst does it. Somehow there is no comprehension that these outcomes are largely dictated years in advance via the terrain alone. Day to day details and issues essentially mean nothing.

In 2020 we are totally at the mercy of Donald Trump. We cannot defeat him. He can only lose. Trump is in the catbird seat of most favorable situation in American politics as an incumbent whose party has been in power only one term. Benefit of a doubt almost cannot be overstated.

Now 2020 happens to coincide with a unique evolving situation in which the key states we need to rescue are midwestern states with high number of white voters and ideological breakdowns that basically mirror the national percentages. I always test as liberal but I'm not dunce enough to ignore that the nation holds 9% more self-identified conservatives than self-identified liberals. There was a thread here recently with a Sanders supporter asking what fellow Sanders supporters are supposed to do. Well, you are supposed to be intelligent enough to understand that 9% ideological deficit and what it means in practical terms. When we're trying to return states like Wisconsin and Michigan this shouldn't be a complicated puzzle.

I'm not going to let go of the Florida example from 2018. We wanted to believe that the national slant in our favor was so strong that we could shove aside the moderate Gwen Graham in favor of the more exciting and more liberal Andrew Gillum. It may have made us feel good for a couple of months. Then election day showed up, as election days have a habit of showing up. Reality shows up. Enthusiasm meant squat. Turnout meant squat. The white folks showed up and 46% of them matter of factly rejected Andrew Gillum as simply too liberal for the state. This is a considerably more recent and more relevant example than anything from that article. We threw away a major vital governorship against a joke opponent like Ron DeSantis simply because we were stupid enough to believe we could force our ideology on voters who will shut the door without second thought.

If the nation were 9% more liberals than conservatives, we could nominate anyone and everyone and allow the math to dictate. That's what Republicans do. Countless times I warned Chris Bowers about this on MyDD back in 2005 and 2006, that if both sides used their energized online base to dictate nominees through a cleansing process, the only possible outcome was that Republicans would be able to force feed more and more outrageously conservative members into office including the presidency, while we would be stuck trying to emulate them and wondering why it wasn't working.

Bowers dismissed it. I was aware of situational influence while he was stuck in the day to day detail crap. Never try to forecast anything if you are a day to day detail type. You've already flunked the process.

[Progressive dog]

35. The moderate Democrats are the only democrats who have won the presidency, ever.

That crap about the election of 2016 forgets about the Russian interference and propaganda campoaign against the moderate Democrat. Moderates wll not support Sanders in 2020 because he has already declared that he's going to beat the establishment. That establishment won a majority of the house seats in 2018 despite the extensive gerrymandering against them and without Sander's help.
Bernie has a progressive caucus which has no Senators in it other than him. They must all be members of that establishment that he despises.

[ibegurpard]

44. Obama and Clinton

both campaigned to the left of how they actually governed

[Progressive dog]

45. Sure they did, they were reasonable people

and were willing to compromise. I'm not sure what you mean by left of where they governed. Neither campaigned on free health care for all and neither tried to impose it. They both knew it couldn't work in the USA.
Clinton did campaign on lowering taxes and he had to raise them. That's called being fiscally responsible.